–O0O–
(THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE
JURY:
THE COURT: OKAY. IN THE WESTERFIELD MATTER THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THE APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL, AS WELL AS MR. WESTERFIELD.
MR. FELDMAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.
YOU CAN START ALLOWING THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC IN, MIKE, WHILE WE’RE DOING THIS.
I WILL INDICATE THAT WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION ON THE 9TH. I HAVE AN OUTPATIENT SURGERY THAT THE DOCTOR HAS ADVISED ME CAN ONLY BE DONE ON THE 9TH OR CAN’T BE DONE UNTIL SEPTEMBER. SO THAT IF WE’RE IN DELIBERATION, WHICH I AM ANTICIPATING, THEY WILL NOT BE DELIBERATING THAT DAY.
OKAY. I HAVE RECEIVED A PLEADING RELATIVE TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS WHICH I WILL OBVIOUSLY CONSIDER AT THE TIME WE TALK ABOUT THOSE. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE PEOPLE HAVE FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY.
MR. FELDMAN, CAN I ASSUME THAT YOU OR MR. BOYCE OR BOTH OF YOU ARE GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT?
MR. FELDMAN: I WAS ACTUALLY HOPING MISS SCHAEFER WHO HAS STEPPED AROUND THE CORNER WOULD, BUT I CAN ADDRESS IT NOW.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. FELDMAN: THE TESTIMONIES OF BOTH DRS. GOFF AND RODRIGUEZ ADDRESSED ISSUES THAT WERE NOT — THAT WERE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND TO WHICH THE DEFENSE SPECIFICALLY WISHES TO REBUT. IN PARTICULAR — EXCUSE ME JUST FOR ONE MINUTE, YOUR HONOR.
[DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.]
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW MISS SCHAEFER —
THE COURT: SURE.
MS. SCHAEFER: YOUR HONOR, THE — SPECIFICALLY WHAT DR. HALL WOULD ADDRESS WOULD BE THE VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES OR VARIABLES THAT MIGHT DELAY OVIPOSITION, INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY — AND THOSE VARIABLES WITH RESPECT TO HOW THERE MIGHT BE A STAGE OF THE BLOW FLY MISSING. SPECIFICALLY THERE WAS REFERENCE TESTIMONY ABOUT ANTS TAKING AWAY THE PUPAL CASES. THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY.
THE POSSIBILITY THAT RODRIGUEZ RAISED WHICH WAS THAT MUMMIFICATION PRECLUDED THE INVASION OF THE BODY BY BLOW FLIES AND DELAYED OVIPOSITION.
THE COURT: THE BOTTOM LINE IS WITHOUT GOING OVER EVERYTHING, YOU ANTICIPATE CALLING THE WITNESS IN REBUTTAL,
NOT —
MS. SCHAEFER: THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WHAT ABOUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE LISTED HERE BEFORE I HEAR —
MR. FELDMAN: NO. I CAN ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. FELDMAN: LATE YESTERDAY I SPOKE WITH MR. CLARKE. THE DEFENSE THIS MORNING, AND I’VE AT LEAST COMMUNICATED THIS TO MR. DUSEK, WE INTEND TO CALL SERGEANT HOLMES JUST TO LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR A DOCUMENT THAT I THINK WILL NOT BE CONTESTED. WE’RE GOING TO CALL MR. COOKSEY TO ADDRESS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT UNDER 1235. AND THEN WE’RE GOING TO CALL THE DOCTOR. AND THAT’S IT.
THE COURT: OH.
MR. FELDMAN: THAT’S ALL I HAVE.
AND THERE’S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT’S LINGERING ON SCHEDULING. WHEN YOU’RE READY TO ADDRESS IT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. BOYCE: YOUR HONOR, WE ALSO HAVE THE ORIGINAL RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALE CONTRACT. I FORGET WHICH EXHIBIT IT IS, BUT IT’S A LEGIBLE — WELL, IT’S AN ORIGINAL, SO IT’S MUCH MORE LEGIBLE THAN THE COPY THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. AND I CAN’T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHICH EXHIBIT IT WAS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME CHECK THE NOTES.
MR. BOYCE: I BELIEVE IT’S EXHIBIT 184, RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALES CONTRACT.
THE COURT: YES. IT IS 184.
MR. FELDMAN: I HAD SPOKEN WITH MR. DUSEK, I DON’T THINK HE HAS AN OPPOSITION TO OUR SUBSTITUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.
MR. DUSEK: I HAVEN’T SEEN IT.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. DUSEK: PERHAPS WE COULD DEAL WITH IT AT A BREAK OR RECESS SOME TIME RATHER THAN DELAYING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR INTENT IS GOING TO SIMPLY BE TO REPLACE THE CURRENT PHOTOCOPY WITH THE ORIGINAL.
MR. FELDMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT’S FINE.
MR. FELDMAN: JUST IS MORE LEGIBLE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DUSEK, I WILL HEAR YOUR COMMENT AS TO DR. HALL.
MR. DUSEK: DR. HALL I DO NOT BELIEVE IS QUALIFIED REGARDING THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL OPINIONS THAT HE MAY BE OFFERING. I FILED THAT MOTION YESTERDAY PRIMARILY BASED UPON THE CIVILIANS OR THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT THEY HAD INDICATED THEY WOULD BE CALLING. THEY ARE NOT, SO MUCH OF THAT IS THEN MOOT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I DON’T KNOW DR. HALL, BUT I AM ASSUMING THAT THE DEFENSE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS HOW TO LAY A FOUNDATION. SO IF AT THE TIME THAT THEY LAY THAT FOUNDATION YOU’RE NOT SATISFIED, YOU’RE WELCOME TO TAKE HIM ON VOIR DIRE, AND THEN I’LL LISTEN TO WHAT EVERYBODY HAS TO SAY.
MR. DUSEK: I THINK ON THE NEWSSTANDS TODAY “READER” MAGAZINE COVER STORY “A NIGHT AT DAD’S.” PERHAPS THE JURY OUGHT TO BE TOLD TO AVOID —
MR. FELDMAN: AND THEY’RE LAID OUT, YOUR HONOR, RIGHT BY THE ESCALATOR DOWNSTAIRS WHICH IS THE WAY EVERYBODY IN THE BUILDING COMES IN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
OKAY. WAS THERE A SCHEDULING ISSUE YOU WANTED TO TAKE UP?
MR. FELDMAN: WELL, I WANT THE COURT TO BE AWARE I’VE BEEN TALKING TO COUNSEL ABOUT IT. HERE’S OUR ISSUE, JUDGE. WE HAD EXPECTED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PROSECUTION MIGHT CALL AS MANY AS EIGHTEEN ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. THEY MADE THEIR DECISIONS NOT TO CALL THEM. I WAS SCHEDULING AROUND ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY AS BEST I COULD.
WITH REGARD TO MONDAY, I HAVE A WITNESS, A POTENTIAL WITNESS, WHO IS A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST. THE WITNESS HAS — I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK WITH HIM LAST SUNDAY ONLY FOR THE FIRST TIME, GIVEN THE RODRIGUEZ TESTIMONY WHICH CAME TO US, FRANKLY, AS A SURPRISE IN REBUTTAL. I MEAN THEY GAVE US WHATEVER REQUISITE NOTICE THEY HAD TO GIVE US, BUT WE WEREN’T CONTEMPLATING IT. SO WE ANALYZED THE POSITION AND CONCLUDED IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO CALL IN SURREBUTTAL SOMEONE TO CONTRADICT RODRIGUEZ. SO I HAVE MADE THE COMMUNICATION.
I FED. EX’D THE DOCUMENTS, BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO REACH THE WITNESS. THE WITNESS KNOWS THAT THE MONDAY IS THE DAY OR THAT WAS AT LEAST THE ONLY AVAILABLE DAY HE HAD. I WON’T KNOW, AND I DO NOT KNOW AT THIS TIME, AND I’VE BEEN TRYING TO REACH THE MAN, YOUR HONOR, BY E-MAIL, BY TELEPHONE, ANY WAY I CAN THINK OF. BUT HE TOLD ME HE HAD A CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WHICH IS WHY I WAS MOVING AS QUICKLY AS I COULD OVER THE WEEKEND.
SO I AM SAYING TO YOU WITH REGARD TO MONDAY OUR POSITION IS WE HAVE A WITNESS WE THINK WILL BE SHORT IF WE CALL HIM AT ALL. AND I JUST DON’T KNOW YET. AND I DON’T — THE COURT HAS EXPERIENCE AS A TRIAL LAWYER. YOU UNDERSTAND IT’S NECESSARY TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME INPUT, SOME COMMUNICATION WITH AN EXPERT BEFORE YOU CALL HIM ON THE STAND. AND I NEED TO MAKE AN INFORMED TACTICAL DECISION OR I COMMIT POPE ERROR. I’M NOT WILLING TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE. IN ORDER FOR ME TO MAKE AN INFORMED JUDGMENT, MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE’RE TRYING.
THE COURT HAS COMMENTED SEVERAL TIMES THAT BECAUSE OF THE SPEED, IT HAS AFFECTED OUR ABILITY TO PROCEED. I’M ONLY SAYING I’LL MAKE THE DECISION AS SOON AS I’M ABLE. I’VE TOLD COUNSEL GENERALLY, AT LEAST AS I HAVE SAID ON THE RECORD, THAT IT’S A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST.
BEYOND THAT WE’LL BE READY TO CLOSE MONDAY. BECAUSE I THINK REGARDLESS, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL FINISH THE INSTRUCTIONS. YOU’VE DIRECTED US TO BE READY ON THE INSTRUCTIONS THIS AFTERNOON, AND WE WILL BE. I DON’T ANTICIPATE MUCH TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. AGAIN, I’VE JUST INDICATED I DON’T THINK IT’S GOING TO TAKE THE WHOLE MORNING. ALTHOUGH I CAN’T SPECULATE ABOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND WE’LL BE READY TO GO NEXT WEEK EARLY. AND WHENEVER YOU WANT US TO DO IT, AND I’LL COMMUNICATE THE INFORMATION AS QUICK AS I CAN. I CAN CALL COUNSEL OVER THE WEEKEND, BUT I CAN’T REACH THE GUY AT THE MOMENT.
THE COURT: MR. DUSEK.
MR. DUSEK: THAT’S NOT RIGHT. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT RIGHT AND NOT PROPER AND NOT FAIR. THEY HAVE KNOWN SINCE WE GAVE THEM THE INDICATION THAT RODRIGUEZ WAS COMING IN. THEY WANTED A DELAY SO THEY COULD READ THE REPORT. THEY HAD THE NAMES. THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO DO THE RESEARCH. THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO FIND A REBUTTAL WITNESS. THEY HAVE KNOWN THAT FOR A LONG TIME.
THIS CASE MOVED ALONG WHEN THEY WERE DEMANDING A SPEEDY TRIAL, WHEN THEY WERE DEMANDING A SPEEDY PRELIM., WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE PUTTING ON THEIR CASE. NOW THAT IT’S COME TO THEIR CASE, THE BRAKES HAVE GONE ON, AND THEY’RE STALLING AT THIS POINT TO AVOID COMING TO AN END.
THEY KNOW WHO IT IS. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE TODAY. THEY KNOW HOW TO REACH HIM. EVERYBODY CAN BE FOUND THROUGH A PAGER, A CELL. PHONE, AN OFFICE PHONE, FAMILY, FRIENDS, ASSOCIATES. THEY WILL NOT EVEN TELL US WHO THIS INDIVIDUAL IS. THEY WANT US ON THE HOOK UNTIL SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR MONDAY NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO. THEY DO NOT EVEN KNOW IF THEY ARE GOING TO CALL THIS FELLOW. THEY KNOW WHAT HE CAN SAY, WHAT HE WILL SAY. THEY OBVIOUSLY GOT HIS RECOMMENDATION FROM SOMEBODY ELSE WHO CAN TELL HIM WHAT HE CAN SAY AND WHAT HE WILL SAY.
TODAY IS THE TIME TO INDICATE IS THIS PERSON COMING, WHAT’S HIS NAME, GIVE US HIS REPORT, AND LET US CHECK HIM OUT. IF NOT, WE START CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON MONDAY MORNING.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, JUST SO WE’RE CLEAR ON THE RECORD, IN THE DISCOVERY FROM RODRIGUEZ, HE WASN’T EVEN MEETING THE D. A. OFFICE, AT LEAST HE WRITES HE MET — HE TRAVELED TO MR. CLARKE’S OFFICE 22 JULY. HIS REPORT IS DATED 7/23.
THE COURT: WELL, THE WAY I’M GOING TO HANDLE IT, MR. FELDMAN, BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU HAD, I MEAN WE’RE NOW BASICALLY FROM THE DATES THAT YOU’VE JUST GIVEN ME, WE’RE INTO A PERIOD TWO WEEKS. I’M GOING TO HEAR YOU IN CAMERA AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO JUSTIFY THE DELAY —
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: — BEFORE MAKING A RULING ON THAT.
SO LET’S DEAL WITH THE WITNESSES WE DO HAVE.
MIKE, GET THE JURY.
(END OF PROCEEDINGS OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY.)
THE COURT: OKAY. WELCOME BACK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. HOW ABOUT THE PADS. HUH? TWO GAMES IN A ROW. WELL, ALL RIGHT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HOPE BY THE END OF THE DAY WITH YOU FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU A GOOD ROADMAP OF WHERE WE’RE AT. SO WE WILL KEEP YOU FULLY ADVISED AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.
IT’S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE LOCAL WEEKLY PAPER KNOWN AS THE “READER” HAS AS THE FRONT PAGE ARTICLE AN ARTICLE DEALING WITH A RESTAURANT THAT HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. I’M JUST BRINGING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION SO IN THE EVENT YOU PICK THAT UP, BE SURE AND AVOID READING THAT ARTICLE.
ALL RIGHT. MR. FELDMAN.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SERGEANT HOLMES. RECALL SERGEANT HOLMES, PLEASE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SERGEANT.

WILLIAM B. HOLMES,
RECALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, PREVIOUSLY HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: GOOD MORNING, SIR.A.: GOOD MORNING.Q.: YOU’RE STILL THE SERGEANT, RIGHT?A.: YES, SIR.Q.: I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT’S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED COURT EXHIBIT 5. COULD YOU PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE PICTURES THAT ARE DEPICTED THEREIN AND TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE AREA OF THE RECOVERY SITE ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 28TH.A.: HOW CLOSE OF AN AREA? THESE ARE SCENE PHOTOS, YES, SIR.Q.: THANK YOU.
WELL, THEY TRULY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE CONDITION OF THE SCENE, IS THAT RIGHT?A.: YES, SIR.Q.: AND YOU — I’M SORRY. YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION HOW CLOSE AN AREA? COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU HAD IN MIND, PLEASE?A.: SOME OF THESE PHOTOS, SPECIFICALLY C, D, AND I BELIEVE E, ARE QUITE SOME DISTANCE FROM THE ACTUAL SCENE, A HUNDRED YARDS OR MORE.Q.: SHOWING YOU WHAT’S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED 3. DO YOU SEE THOSE AREAS ON 3?A.: YES, SIR.Q.: COULD YOU JUST POINT THEM OUT TO THE JURY, PLEASE? MAYBE I WILL GIVE YOU A PEN SO THAT YOU CAN CORRESPOND IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE IN 5 TO WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US ARE ABOUT A HUNDRED YARDS AWAY, WHATEVER WORKS FOR YOU, SIR.A.: I THINK THEY’RE ALREADY MARKED. THE AREA THAT SAYS 5C.Q.: OKAY.A.: AND THAT WOULD BE B, C, D, POSSIBLY E. AND THEN F, G, AND H ARE MORE OUT IN THIS AREA.Q.: I’M SORRY. WHEN YOU SAY THIS, IT APPEARS THAT YOU —A.: THE 5 B.O. AREA. AND PROBABLY A IS THE CLOSEST TO THE SCENE, AND THAT’S MORE IN — THE AREA THAT’S MARKED 5G AND H ON PHOTO B.Q.: YOU THINK IT’S ALSO REFLECTED IN PHOTO A?A.: I THINK A IS THE CLOSEST ONE TO THE ACTUAL SITE UNDER THE TREE, AND THAT’S GENERALLY IN THE AREA OF 5G AND H.Q.: JUST SO THAT IT’S DONE TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, PLEASE, COULD YOU DO AN A AND AN ARROW OR ANY WAY YOU CAN COMMUNICATE IT, PLEASE.A.: SURE. FOR A?Q.: WELL, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A. IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?A.: YES, SIR. AS BEING THE CLOSEST ONE.Q.: YES, PLEASE.
IF YOU SAW THAT E AND F OR SOME OF THE OTHERS WERE DIFFERENTLY THAN WE’VE GOT THEM IDENTIFIED ON THE CHART, COULD YOU PLEASE JUST WRITE ON AS BEST AS YOU CAN RECOLLECT IT WHERE THEY APPROPRIATELY DEPICT.A.: (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)
I THINK — I THINK E IS AND F MAY BE RIGHT DOWN IN HERE, BUT FROM THE PHOTO I CAN’T TELL IF THAT ONE’S IN THIS AREA WHERE THE 5F ALREADY IS OR IF IT’S ALSO UP NEAR THIS TREE ALSO.Q.: I’M SORRY. YOU’RE SAYING THIS TREE, AND YOU’RE POINTING TO A TREE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU JUST DREW THE E AND THE ARROW, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?A.: YES, SIR.Q.: SO HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO DO THAT, AND IT’S ACCURATE AS FAR AS YOU’RE CONCERNED?A.: YES, SIR.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: DO YOU KNOW WHICH DAY THE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN, SERGEANT?A.: YES, SIR.Q.: WHEN?A.: FEBRUARY 28TH.Q.: AND THERE APPEARS TO BE A BUNCH OF DEBRIS IN MANY OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS. IS THAT CORRECT?A.: YES, SIR.Q.: IS THAT WHAT APPARENTLY YOU’RE TRYING TO SHOW WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE TRASH IN THE AREA?A.: YES, SIR.Q.: WHAT TYPE OF TRASH?A.: OLD TIRES, COUCHES, ENGINE BLOCKS, WOODEN PALLETS, OLD WOODEN SPOOLS FROM CABLE. LARGE SPOOLS FROM CABLE.Q.: IS THERE ANY FOOD IN ANY OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?A.: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.Q.: ANY DEAD ANIMALS OR CARCASSES?A.: NOT THAT WE SAW.Q.: JUST PAPER AND METAL, THAT TYPE OF STUFF?A.: YES.Q.: WOOD?A.: NOT GARBAGE, HOUSEHOLD GARBAGE. IT’S LARGE THINGS THAT YOU CAN’T TAKE TO THE DUMP OR WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY TAKING TO THE DUMP.Q.: DID YOU SEE ANY FLIES HANGING AROUND ANY OF THOSE ITEMS?A.: NOT VERY MANY.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. FELDMAN: NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
SERGEANT, YOU CAN RESUME YOUR SEAT.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, MR. COOKSEY, PLEASE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

RICHARD L. COOKSEY,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: RICHARD L. COOKSEY. C-O-O-K-S-E-Y.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMANQ.: GOOD MORNING, SIR.
WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?A.: I’M EMPLOYED AS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY INVESTIGATOR FOR THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.Q.: AND PRIOR TO THAT WHAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE?A.: I WAS A POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY.Q.: I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO APPROXIMATELY JULY THE 16TH IN THE YEAR 2002. DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INTERVIEW OF NEAL WESTERFIELD?A.: YES.Q.: WHO WAS PRESENT AT THAT INTERVIEW?A.: MR. DUSEK, I THINK MR. CLARKE WAS THERE, AND MR. WATKINS FROM SAN DIEGO P. D., AND MYSELF.Q.: NEAL WESTERFIELD WAS THERE, TOO?A.: I’M SORRY. AND MR. WESTERFIELD AND HIS MOTHER ALSO.Q.: DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR COMMUNICATION WITH NEAL WESTERFIELD, DID HE TELL YOU THAT — WELL, STRIKE THAT.
WERE YOU TAKING NOTES?A.: I WAS.Q.: AND WERE YOU TAKING CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES?A.: AS WE WENT ALONG, YES.Q.: AND PRIOR TO COMING TO COURT TODAY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE NOTES?A.: YES, SIR.Q.: AND YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT YOUR NOTES JUST BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED?A.: CORRECT.Q.: DID NEAL WESTERFIELD TELL YOU THAT HE WENT TO THE OFFICE AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 O’CLOCK, MEANING FEBRUARY 4TH, TO LOOK AT PORN.?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: I DIDN’T NOTE THE DATE AT THE TIME ON THE NOTES. MY OPINION OF THE CONNOTATION OF THE DATE HE WAS SPEAKING IT WAS, YES, IT WAS THE 4TH.
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: AND, YES, HE MADE THAT STATEMENT?A.: YES, HE DID MAKE A STATEMENT.
MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: DO YOUR NOTES ALSO INDICATE THAT HE WENT TO GET SOME SALAD AT THAT POINT IN TIME?A.: THAT WAS THE — I HAD THE —
MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION. THAT’S NOT PRIOR TO THE STATEMENT OFFERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
FIRST OF ALL, I’M NOT SURE OF THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: WHAT DID HE SAY —
MR. FELDMAN: I’M —
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: — AS BEST YOU CAN REMEMBER?
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: I WILL SEE YOU AT SIDEBAR.
BOB.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE
JURY, AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.) (PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.) (END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DUSEK.
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: MR. COOKSEY, THIS INTERVIEW WAS BASICALLY A FIRST CHANCE TO MEET WITH MR. WESTERFIELD REGARDING HIS TESTIMONY AT TRIAL, WASN’T IT?
MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: AS TO WHETHER IT WAS THE FIRST. REPHRASE IT, COUNSEL.
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: BASICALLY THIS WAS NOT AN INTERVIEW, WAS IT?A.: IT WAS NOT.Q.: WE ALREADY HAD STATEMENTS FROM HIM FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO EVERYBODY.A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: AND WE WERE ANTICIPATING CALLING HIM AT TRIAL BASED ON WHAT HAD HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY.A.: YEAH. THIS WAS A PRE-TRIAL OR PRE-TESTIMONY INTERVIEW WITH MR. WESTERFIELD.Q.: AND REGARDING LOOKING AT PORN., POSSIBLY LOOKING AT PORN. THAT NIGHT, DO YOU RECALL THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THAT CAME UP?A.: NOT SPECIFICALLY, OTHER THAN MAKING THAT PARTICULAR NOTE. AS I RECALL, WE TALKED ABOUT IT LATER ON.Q.: HOW SO?A.: IN REGARDS TO THE — MR. WESTERFIELD, MR. NEAL WESTERFIELD, HAVING A MEETING WITH MR. FELDMAN AND BEING SHOWN SOME SCREEN PRINTS REGARDING HIS LOOKING AT PORNOGRAPHY.Q.: SO HE INDICATED AT THAT POINT HE WAS CONVINCED THAT HE HAD SEEN PORN. AFTER MEETING WITH MR. FELDMAN?A.: YES.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. FELDMAN: NO, THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. COOKSEY.
REMEMBER YOU’RE UNDER AN ADMONITION NOT TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES TO YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES.
(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. FELDMAN.
MR. FELDMAN: ROBERT HALL, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

ROBERT D. HALL,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CLERK: SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: YES. MY NAME IS ROBERT D. HALL. H-A-L-L.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: GOOD MORNING, SIR.A.: GOOD MORNING.Q.: HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED?A.: I CURRENTLY SERVE AS THE INTERIM VICE-PROVOST FOR RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA. AND MY PERMANENT POSITION THERE IS ASSOCIATE VICE-PROVOST.Q.: SIR, WHAT ARE YOUR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS?A.: MY UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND IN COLLEGE PARK. MY MASTER OF SCIENCE AND PH. D. ARE IN ENTOMOLOGY FROM VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY. AND MY J. D. IS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA.Q.: SIR, HAVE YOU WRITTEN ANY WORKS IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY?A.: YES, I HAVE.Q.: PUBLICATIONS.
HAVE YOU LECTURED OR TAUGHT ON THE SUBJECT OF FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY AND FORENSIC SCIENCE?A.: YES, I HAVE.Q.: ARE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS?A.: YES. THOSE WOULD INCLUDE BEING A MEMBER OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, SECTION D. I’M A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY, A DIPLOMAT OF THAT PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION.Q.: ARE YOU BOARD-CERTIFIED IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGYA.: YES, I AM.Q.: SIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY MILITARY EXPERIENCE?A.: YES, I DO.Q.: CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT, PLEASE.A.: AFTER I GOT OFF ACTIVE DUTY IN THE EARLY 1970’S, I WENT INTO RESERVE SERVICE AND HAVE DONE THAT EVER SINCE WITH THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT. I CURRENTLY COMMAND THE 7228 MEDICAL SUPPORT UNIT IN COLUMBIA, MISSOURI.Q.: AND, SIR, DID YOU SERVE IN DESERT STORM?A.: YES, I DID.Q.: AND DID YOU — WHAT WAS YOUR RANK?A.: I WAS A MAJOR AT THAT TIME AND SERVED AS THE ASSISTANT PATIENT ADMINISTRATION OFFICER AT FORT LEONARD WOOD IN MISSOURI.Q.: HAVE YOU BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY PREVIOUS TO TODAY?A.: YES, I HAVE.Q.: AND APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES, SIR, IF YOU KNOW?A.: I DON’T KEEP A RECORD, BUT I WOULD SAY DOZENS OF TIMES.Q.: ALL RIGHT.
HAVE YOU BEEN CONSULTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FOR PURPOSES OF OR FOR FORENSIC PURPOSES?A.: YES, I HAVE.Q.: FOR INSTANCE, WHAT? WHAT AGENCIES?A.: IT WOULD INCLUDE THE F. B. I., THE ARMY’S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION, THE MISSOURI HIGHWAY PATROL OR STATE POLICE, IF YOU WILL, AND STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.Q.: AND WHEN YOU’VE BEEN CONSULTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, SIR, WHAT HAVE THEY ASKED YOU ABOUT; WHAT HAVE THEY ASKED YOU TO DO?A.: IN MOST CASES THE INTEREST IS HOW LONG A DECEDENT HAS BEEN DEAD.Q.: WE’VE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO THE WORDS POST-MORTEM INTERVAL IN OUR COURT. CAN YOU PLEASE — HOW DO YOU USE THE TERM POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?A.: WELL, THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL IS THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT SOMEONE HAS BEEN DEAD. THE MINIMUM POST-MORTEM INTERVAL AS AN ENTOMOLOGIST UNDERSTANDS THAT TERM WOULD BE THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE INSECTS COLLECTED AT A KNOWN MOMENT WOULD HAVE TAKEN UNDER THE TEMPERATURES PREVAILING TO DEVELOP TO THAT STAGE. WITH THE THEORY BEING THAT ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, INSECT ACTIVITY OCCURS VERY RAPIDLY AFTER SOMEONE DIES.Q.: SO WHAT DO YOU DO, YOU COLLECT INSECTS AND THEN YOU WORK BACKWARDS TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT THE SUCCESSION, THE GENERATION SUCCESSION OF THE INSECTS?A.: INSECTS ARE COLLECTED AND PRESERVED AT A KNOWN TIME. AND THE ENTOMOLOGIST RECOGNIZING THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE SPECIES OF THE INSECT IS ABLE TO WORK BACKWARDS AND DETERMINE UNDER THE TEMPERATURES PREVAILING HOW LONG IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN FOR THE INSECTS TO REACH THAT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.Q.: AND HAVE YOU TESTIFIED TO THAT — TO CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO THAT ISSUE IN THE PAST?A.: YES, I HAVE.Q.: AND IS THAT GENERALLY THE PURPOSE OF THE FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST?A.: THE FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST IN THE MEDICAL/CRIMINAL SENSE, YES.Q.: SIR, BEFORE COMING TO COURT WERE YOU PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION, EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, TO REVIEW?A.: YES, I WAS.Q.: CAN YOU TELL US, PLEASE, WHAT YOU RECOLLECT REVIEWING.A.: I’LL HAVE TO RECITE FROM MEMORY. I’VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY REPORTS OF DAVID FAULKNER, OF DR. NEAL HASKELL. I’VE REVIEWED THE REPORT FILED BY DR. WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, THE REPORT FILED BY DR. LEE GOFF. I HAVE SEEN TEMPERATURE RECORDS. I’VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE AUTOPSY REPORT. SOME CRIME OR CASE SCENE REPORTS THAT DEAL WITH THE SCENE AT WHICH THE DECEDENT WAS FOUND. I’VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW TRIAL TESTIMONY BY DR. HASKELL, BY DR. GOFF, AND BY DR. RODRIGUEZ.Q.: SIR, —A.: I DON’T BELIEVE I’VE LEFT ANYTHING OUT.Q.: WELL, DID YOU REVIEW THE INSECTS?A.: OH, YES. I’VE SEEN THE INSECTS, CERTAINLY.Q.: AND, YOU KNOW, I DIDN’T ASK YOU THIS ON YOUR QUALIFICATIONS, BUT HAVE YOU TAUGHT FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY OR ENTOMOLOGY ON A UNIVERSITY LEVEL?A.: YES. I’VE TAUGHT A COURSE IN MEDICAL AND VETERINARY ENTOMOLOGY, INCLUDING FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY, FOR QUITE SOME TIME.Q.: JUST WITH REGARD TO I’LL SAY YOUR OWN ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE, WHAT SORT OF WORK DID YOUR DAD DO?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. 352.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: IS THERE A TEXTBOOK, A RECOGNIZED TEXTBOOK IN THE AREA OF BLOW FLIES OR ENTOMOLOGY?A.: IN THE AREA OF BLOW FLIES, THE MONOGRAPH ON BLOW FLIES OF NORTH AMERICA REMAINS THE PRINCIPAL TEXT CONSULTED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD, YES.Q.: AND WHO’S THE AUTHOR OF THAT TEXT?A.: MY DAD WAS.Q.: SO IS THIS A CASE WHERE THE APPLE DIDN’T FALL FAR FROM THE TREE AND YOU BECAME AN ENTOMOLOGIST?A.: I WENT INTO ENTOMOLOGY BECAUSE I WAS FASCINATED WITH IT AS A CHILD AND LEARNED FROM MY FATHER, YES.Q.: IN ADDITION TO THE — YOU DON’T HAVE A COPY OF YOUR REPORT UP THERE, DO YOU?A.: NO, I DO NOT.Q.: WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE? DO YOU THINK HAVING A COPY MIGHT HELP YOU?A.: SURE.Q.: I JUST DID ONE, BUT OTHERWISE I THINK THIS IS — WHAT I’M GIVING YOU, SIR, THAT’S A COPY OF YOUR REPORT, ISN’T IT?A.: YES, IT IS.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD AMONG THE DEFENSE.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT, JUST ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS, I DON’T KNOW, YOUR CURRICULUM VITAE, YOUR RESUME’.A.: YES, SIR. THAT’S A COPY OF MY RESUME’.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK TO HAVE MARKED AS NEXT IN ORDER A COPY OF DR. HALL’S RESUME’, PLEASE.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IT WILL BE 196 FOR IDENTIFICATION.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(CURRICULUM VITA OF DR. ROBERT D. HALL MARKED TRIAL
EXHIBIT NUMBER 196 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. FELDMANQ.: HOW WAS IT THAT ENTOMOLOGISTS MAKE DETERMINATIONS OF POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?A.: AS I DESCRIBED A FEW MOMENTS AGO, THE SPECIALIST IS ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE KINDS OF INSECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DECOMPOSITION PROCESS, AND THOSE ARE IN LARGE PART THE BLOW FLIES THAT I TALKED ABOUT IN MY REPORT. BY KNOWING THE SPECIES AND THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT AND KNOWING THE TIME WHEN THOSE SPECIES WERE PRESERVED, AND ANALYZING THE TEMPERATURE UNDER WHICH THEY DEVELOPED, AN ENTOMOLOGIST CAN MAKE AN INFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO HOW LONG IT TOOK THOSE INSECTS TO DEVELOP TO THE STAGE COLLECTED.Q.: SO IS INSECT ARRIVAL THE SAME AS THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE PERSON WAS DEAD?A.: IN SOME CASES IT CAN BE.Q.: BUT IN OTHER CASES THERE MAY BE SOME VARIABLES, IS THAT RIGHT?A.: THERE MAY BE VARIABLES, THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: AND YOUR POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE ACCURACY OF THE ENTOMOLOGIC EVIDENCE, HOW ACCURATE IS IT?A.: IN MANY CASES IT IS REMARKABLY ACCURATE.Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE INSECT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, AFTER YOUR REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND AFTER YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE TESTIMONY AND AFTER YOUR REVIEW OF THE WEATHER DATA AND ALL OF THE OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU WERE PROVIDED, DID YOU FORM AN OPINION AS TO HOW LONG THE DECEDENT WAS EXPOSED TO BLOW FLY OVIPOSITION?A.: YES.Q.: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT WAS THAT OPINION.A.: MY OPINION REFLECTED IN MY REPORT AND THAT IS THAT THE BLOW FLY OVIPOSITION OCCURRED NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY THE 23RD, 2002, AND NOT EARLIER THAN FEBRUARY THE 12TH, 2002.Q.: AND WITH REGARD TO THOSE DATES, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT’S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED 169.
I’M SORRY, SIR. I THINK YOU TOLD US THAT IN YOUR VIEW THE WINDOW OF TIME FOR WHICH THE DECEDENT WAS AVAILABLE FOR OVIPOSITION WAS BETWEEN —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
MR. FELDMAN: I DON’T THINK I FINISHED.
THE COURT: I DON’T THINK HE HAD EITHER.
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: WHY DON’T YOU TELL US WHAT THE WINDOW OF TIME FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DECEDENT WAS AGAIN, PLEASE.A.: IN MY OPINION IT WAS NOT EARLIER THAN 12 FEBRUARY AND LATER THAN 23 FEBRUARY WOULD HAVE BEEN INSUFFICIENT THERMAL ENERGY FOR THE STAGES COLLECTED. 12 TO 23 FEBRUARY.Q.: SO IN YOUR VIEW ANY TIME BETWEEN 23 FEBRUARY AND 12 FEBRUARY IS THE WINDOW OF TIME WITHIN WHICH THE DECEDENT MAY HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO INSECTS, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: SO I’M WRITING ON 169, UNDER WHERE IT SAYS GOFF, SINGING HILLS, I’M GOING TO SAY HALL WITH AN ARROW TO THE 23RD, AND THEN I’M GOING TO WRITE DR. HALL WITH AN ARROW BACK.
YOU JUST USED THE WORDS THERMAL UNITS, AND WE’VE HEARD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ACCUMULATED TEMPERATURES, ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS, ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS.A.: YES.Q.: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO US, PLEASE.A.: INSECTS ARE COLD-BLOODED ANIMALS. AND WITHIN BIOLOGICAL LIMITS, WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THAT, OF COURSE, IN SOME CASES IT CAN BE TOO HOT FOR CREATURES TO LIVE, IN SOME CASES IT CAN BE TOO COLD. BUT WITHIN THE S-SHAPED BIOLOGICAL CURVE, COLD-BLOODED ANIMALS DEVELOP PROPORTIONALLY MORE RAPIDLY AS THE TEMPERATURE INCREASES. AND THAT IS THE BASIC THEORY THAT WAS USED TO ANALYZE INSECT DEVELOPMENT.
WHETHER YOU CALL IT THERMAL UNITS OR WHETHER YOU CALL IT THERMAL ENERGY OR WHETHER YOU CALL IT TEMPERATURE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. AND THAT TEMPERATURE CAN BE MEASURED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. YOU CAN MEASURE IT IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, YOU CAN MEASURE IT IN DEGREES CENTIGRADE OR CELSIUS. YOU CAN MEASURE IT EVERY HOUR OR YOU CAN MEASURE IT EVERY DAY. IF TEMPERATURES ARE MEASURED EVERY HOUR, THEY CAN BE ACCUMULATED AS WHAT ARE TERMED ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS.Q.: IN OTHER WORDS, ADDED, ACCUMULATED?A.: THEY ARE ADDED TOGETHER, THAT’S CORRECT. ADDED TOGETHER.
IF TEMPERATURES ARE MEASURED AS THEY OFTEN ARE AS DAILY MAXIMUM AND A DAILY MINIMUM TEMPERATURE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE WHAT IS CALLED AN ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAY, WHICH WOULD BE NOTHING MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF DEGREES, WHETHER IT’S FAHRENHEIT OR WHETHER IT’S CENTIGRADE, ACCUMULATED AS AN AVERAGE OVER A TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR PERIOD.Q.: AND THEN WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THOSE ACCUMULATIONS OR THOSE — THE NUMBERS?A.: ONCE YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS, IT IS POSSIBLE TO REFER TO ANY OF SEVERAL EXPERIMENTAL DATA SETS THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED OVER THE YEARS THAT WOULD EXPRESS THE DEVELOPMENT OF VARIOUS SPECIES OF FLIES UNDER CERTAIN TEMPERATURE REGIMES. AND BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FLIES IS A FUNCTION OF ACCUMULATED TEMPERATURE, ONE CAN INFER FROM THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA HOW LONG IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN FOR DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR AT TEMPERATURES MEASURED UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.Q.: NOW, YOU SAID DATA SETS. YOU USED THE WORD DATA SETS.A.: YES.Q.: ARE YOU REFERRING TO STUDIES SUCH AS THOSE BY I THINK I’M SAYING IT RIGHT, KAMAL, GREENBURG, AND ANDERSON?A.: THOSE WERE THE THREE INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, YES.Q.: WHEN YOU SAY DATA SETS, YOU MEAN THE WEATHER OBSERVATIONS OR THE CORRELATIONS THAT THESE AUTHORS MADE WITH REGARD TO HOW MUCH TIME IT WOULD TAKE FOR BLOW FLIES TO REACH CERTAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT?A.: FUNDAMENTALLY THAT IS CORRECT. THE WAY THESE EXPERIMENTS ARE DONE IS THE INSECTS ARE REARED UNDER CONSTANT TEMPERATURES. AND THE TEMPERATURES ARE RECORDED AND KNOWN AND THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR THE INSECTS TO DEVELOP IS RECORDED AS PART OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE.Q.: SIR, I FORGOT TO ASK YOU, I’M SORRY, WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU EVALUATED, YOU MENTIONED THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ. DO YOU KNOW WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ?A.: I KNOW HIM PROFESSIONALLY, YES.Q.: IS HE A FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST?A.: NO.Q.: IS HE BOARD-CERTIFIED IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY?A.: NO.Q.: DO YOU KNOW HIM AS AN ANTHROPOLOGIST?A.: YES.Q.: WITH REGARD TO DR. RODRIGUEZ, WE HAVE ON THE CHART BEHIND YOU, I’M SORRY, IT’S 169, YOU WILL SEE IT SAYS SUNDAY, UP IN THE LEFT IT SAYS SUNDAY, BUT IT SAYS RODRIGUEZ 1/16 TO 1/31. THAT WAS HIS ESTIMATE OF THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, SIR. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?A.: YOU KNOW, I DO NOT.Q.: WHY?A.: IT’S INCONSISTENT WITH THE INSECT EVIDENCE THAT I’VE EXAMINED.Q.: NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR CALCULATIONS, SIR, AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT DATA, WHAT WEATHER DATA, DID YOU UTILIZE?A.: I USED TWO PIECES OF WEATHER DATA. ONE WAS THE WEATHER DATA FROM SINGING HILLS COUNTRY CLUB.Q.: YES.A.: AND I ALSO CALCULATED USING THE WEATHER DATA FROM BROWN STATION.Q.: SO YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH BROWN FIELD OR BROWN STATION INFORMATION WEATHER DATA AND YOU WERE ALSO PROVIDED WITH SINGING HILLS?A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: NOW, WE HEARD ABOUT THESE THREE STUDIES, KAMAL, GREENBURG, AND ANDERSON. WHICH OF THOSE STUDIES, IF ANY, DID YOU USE?A.: I FACTORED THEM ALL IN.Q.: YOU TOOK ALL OF THEM?A.: YES.Q.: WHY DID YOU DO THAT?A.: BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL ON POINT TO THE ISSUE OF BLOW FLY DEVELOPMENT. THE TWO SPECIES AT ISSUE HERE WOULD BE PHAENICIA SERICATA AND PHORMIA REGINA. AND THOSE SPECIES WERE INVOLVED IN ALL THREE OF THOSE STUDIES.Q.: SO YOU JUST — IT WAS YOUR PROFESSIONAL DETERMINATION THAT UTILIZING ALL OF THE STUDIES WOULD ASSIST YOU IN RENDERING AN ACCURATE OPINION AS TO YOUR ESTIMATION OF THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?A.: I THOUGHT IT WAS THE BEST WAY TO ANALYZE THE SITUATION, YES.Q.: SIR, HOW MUCH TIME GENERALLY ELAPSES BETWEEN THE TIME FLIES MIGHT ARRIVE ON AN EXPOSED BODY AND THE ELEMENTS —A.: THE REPLICATED DATA AVAILABLE TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WOULD INDICATE THAT AS LONG AS CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET, AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE THAT THE BODY BE EXPOSED TO INSECT ACTIVITY, —Q.: ARE THERE VARIABLES THAT MIGHT DELAY OVIPOSITION?
I’M SORRY. DID I JUST INTERRUPT YOU?A.: WELL, —Q.: IF I DID, I WANT TO TAKE BACK MY QUESTION AND ASK YOU TO FINISH.A.: AS LONG AS A DECEDENT IS EXPOSED TO INSECT ACTIVITY, AS LONG AS IT IS DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS, AND AS LONG AS IT’S DURING THE SEASON OF THE YEAR WHEN INSECTS ARE AVAILABLE TO BE FLYING AROUND, THEN THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA WOULD SAY THAT BLOW FLIES WILL ARRIVE WITHIN MINUTES TO HOURS AFTER A DECEDENT HAS DIED.Q.: ARE THERE VARIABLES THAT MIGHT DELAY OVIPOSITION, SIR?A.: I CAN THINK OF VARIABLES, YES.Q.: CAN YOU TELL US SOME OF THE VARIABLES.A.: ONE VARIABLE MIGHT BE A DECEDENT WHO WAS, FOR INSTANCE, CUT INTO PIECES AND PUT INTO PLASTIC BAGS.Q.: OKAY.A.: ANOTHER VARIABLE MIGHT BE A DECEDENT WHO DIED IN THE RECESSES OF A CLOSED-UP HOUSE. ANOTHER VARIABLE MIGHT BE A DECEDENT WHO WAS PUT IN THE TRUNK OF A CAR FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME.Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF TRUNK OF A CAR OR WITH REGARD TO STORAGE COMPARTMENTS, WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, MIGHT THAT HAVE ON THE AVAILABILITY OF A PARTICULAR BODY TO INSECT OVIPOSITION?A.: THE EXPERIMENTS I’VE CONDUCTED SAY THAT UP TO A PERIOD OF FOUR DAYS THERE IS VERY LITTLE EFFECT. I WAS ABLE TO DOCUMENT A MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE IN THE MIX OF SPECIES, THAT IS, THE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE; BUT THE SPECIES THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WERE NONETHELESS PRESENT WHEN SURROGATE CORPSES, IF YOU WILL, WERE EXPOSED TO INSECT ACTIVITY AFTER BEING PROTECTED BUT BEING DEAD FOR VARYING PERIODS OF TIME, FROM ONE TO FOUR DAYS.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT A SEVEN-YEAR-OLD CHILD, SEVEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL, WAS KILLED ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY THE 2ND OR FEBRUARY THE 3RD AND THEN PLACED INTO THE STORAGE COMPARTMENT OF A MOTOR HOME, CARRIED AROUND IN THAT STORAGE COMPARTMENT FOR A DAY OR TWO, AND THEN DEPOSITED EXPOSED AND NUDE AT THE DEHESA SITE NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY THE 4TH.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FURTHER — WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WOULD YOU EXPECT TO SEE BLOW FLIES ON THAT BODY WITHIN A PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: IF THE BODY WAS PUT OUT, FOR INSTANCE, UNDER THE COVER OF DARKNESS, WHEN THE SUN ROSE THE NEXT DAY AND THE TEMPERATURES BECAME SUFFICIENTLY WARM FOR FLY ACTIVITY, I WOULD EXPECT FLY ACTIVITY TO OCCUR ALMOST AS SOON AS THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF.
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: IF THE BODY WAS OUT HYPOTHETICALLY ON FEBRUARY THE 4TH, WOULD YOU EXPECT THE BLOW FLIES TO WAIT FIVE DAYS BEFORE THEY GOT TO THE BODY?A.: NO, I DON’T BELIEVE I FOLLOW YOUR QUESTION.Q.: I’M WONDERING IF YOU ASSUMED THE SAME HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE’S A BODY OUT AT SINGING HILLS, IT’S FEBRUARY THE 4TH, WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT THE BLOW FLIES WOULD DELAY INFESTATION FOR FIVE DAYS?A.: IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THE BODY WOULD BE WHERE IT WAS FOUND AND BLOW FLY ACTIVITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTENT AND THEN APPEAR FIVE DAYS LATER?Q.: YES, SIR.A.: NO, I WOULDN’T EXPECT THAT.Q.: WHAT ABOUT SEVEN DAYS?A.: NO.Q.: AMONG OTHER VARIABLES WE’VE HEARD ABOUT IN COURT INVOLVES THE ISSUE OF MUMMIFICATION. HOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TERM MUMMIFICATION, SIR?
MR. DUSEK: NO FOUNDATION FOR AN ENTOMOLOGIST, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
AS IT RELATES TO YOUR JOB, YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: AS AN ENTOMOLOGIST, I’M NOT AN EXPERT ON MUMMIFICATION, ALTHOUGH MUMMIFICATION IS A PHENOMENON WHEN A BODY DRIES OUT. AND IN VIRTUALLY ALL EXPERIMENTS WITH WHICH I HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED, THE SURROGATE CADAVERS, CORPSES, IF YOU WILL, MUMMIFY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION HAS LITTLE, IF ANY, EFFECT ON BLOW FLY COLONIZATION.
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: WHAT ABOUT DROUGHT; DOES DROUGHT HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE FLIES?A.: FLIES ARE EXTREMELY RESILIENT ORGANISMS. AND IT’S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE HERE IN MY CAREER AS AN ENTOMOLOGIST THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE TIMES WHEN IT IS EXTREMELY DRY, FLIES CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE WHEN THEY’RE NEEDED.Q.: IS IT THE CASE, THEN, FLIES ARE PARTICULARLY RESILIENT TO DROUGHT? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?A.: YES, IT IS.Q.: ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASSUME THE SAME FACTUAL SCENARIO, ONLY THIS TIME, THAT IS, THAT A SEVEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL WAS KILLED FEBRUARY THE 2ND OR 3RD, PUT IN A STORAGE COMPARTMENT OF A MOTOR HOME AND CARRIED AROUND FOR A DAY OR TWO, AND THEN DEPOSITED EXPOSED AND NUDE AT THE DEHESA RECOVERY SITE NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY THE 4TH.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FURTHER ASSUME THIS TIME THAT APPROXIMATELY FORTY-EIGHT HOURS LATER THE FACE STARTED TO MUMMIFY.
UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, SIR, WHEN MIGHT YOU EXPECT TO SEE BLOW FLIES ON THAT BODY?A.: THAT WOULDN’T CHANGE MY EARLIER CONCLUSION.Q.: WHICH WAS?A.: THAT THE BLOW FLIES WOULD HAVE ACCESSED THE BODY DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS FOLLOWING THE DEPOSITION. IF THE BODY HAPPENED TO BE DEPOSITED DURING THE DAY, THEN THE BLOW FLIES WOULD ACCESS THE DECEDENT VERY, VERY QUICKLY.Q.: AND WHERE WOULD THE BLOW FLIES ACCESS; WHERE DO THEY GO?A.: THEY’LL GO TO THE NATURAL ORIFICES OF THE BODY. WHEN THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.Q.: NOW, THE —A.: THE —Q.: SORRY, SIR.
HOW MANY ORIFICES ARE YOU REFERRING TO?A.: WELL, THE CHINESE DEATH INVESTIGATOR SUNG T’ZU POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE NINE ORIFICES TO THE HUMAN BODY. BUT IN GENERAL THE FACE AND THE UROGENITAL AREA ARE THE SITES WHERE THE BLOW FLIES WILL LAY THEIR EGGS.Q.: SO THE MOUTH, THE NOSTRILS, THE EARS, IS THAT FIVE?A.: THE EYES.Q.: PARDON ME. THE EYES. THAT WOULD BE SEVEN. AND IF IT’S A FEMALE UROGENITAL AREA, IS THAT RIGHT?A.: AND THE ANUS.Q.: AND THE ANUS. OKAY.
SO AS TO ANY OF THOSE AREAS THE FLIES WOULD GO, FAIR STATEMENT?A.: YES.Q.: AND LET’S ASSUME THE SAME HYPOTHETICAL, THE BODY WAS OUT, IT WAS MUMMIFIED. WOULD THE BLOW FLIES WAIT FIVE DAYS TO GET TO THE BODY EVEN IF THE BODY WAS MUMMIFIED?A.: THE TERM OF ART IN THAT QUESTION WOULD BE MUMMIFIED.Q.: OKAY.A.: AND FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I HAVE SEEN OF THE DECEDENT, IT’S MY OPINION THAT THE BLOW FLIES WOULD NOT WAIT FIVE DAYS.Q.: SIR, AS PART OF YOUR ANALYSIS IN THIS CASE,. . .
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:Q.: WE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF ANTS. CAN YOU TELL ME DO ANTS SCAVENGE BLOW FLY LARVA?A.: ANTS HAVE BEEN IMPLICATED AS PREDATORS IN SCAVENGING YOUNG BLOW FLY LARVAE, IN SOME CASES BLOW FLY EGGS, EGGS OF OTHER SORTS OF INSECTS, AND LARVAE OF OTHER SORTS OF INSECTS.Q.: IN THIS CASE DID YOU NOTICE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANTS IN YOUR EVALUATION?A.: THERE WAS AN ANT THAT WAS PART OF THE COLLECTION. WHEN I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT THE SCENE, THERE WERE SOME ANTS THAT I OBSERVED. NOT IN EXTRAORDINARY NUMBERS, NO.Q.: WOULD ANTS CARRY OFF BLOW FLY LARVA TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE BLOW FLIES WOULD THEN BE DENIED THE AVAILABILITY TO REPRODUCE OR THE — YEAH, DENIED THE AVAILABILITY TO REPRODUCE? DO ANTS DO THAT?A.: IN OTHER WORDS, IF I CAN UNDERSTAND THE SENSE OF THE QUESTION, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ANTS WOULD DECIMATE THE BLOW FLY POPULATION TO AN EXTENT THAT IT WAS GONE?Q.: YES.A.: THEN THE ANSWER IS NO.Q.: WHY NOT?A.: WELL, ANTS ARE PREDATORS. BLOW FLIES ARE EXTREMELY PROLIFIC. TRIVIALLY, IF ANTS WERE THAT EFFECTIVE, THEN WE WOULD NO LONGER HAVE BLOW FLIES BECAUSE THE ANTS WOULD HAVE EATEN THEM ALL.Q.: SO EVEN THE PRESENCE OF ANTS DOESN’T CHANGE YOUR OPINION AS TO HOW THE BLOW FLIES MIGHT OVIPOSIT AND DEVELOP ON AN EXPOSED BODY.A.: NO, IT DOESN’T.Q.: EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE ANTS AROUND, WE DON’T EVEN KNOW, RIGHT?A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: IN YOUR REPORT, SIR, I ASKED YOU TO — WELL, — IN YOUR REPORT I ASKED YOU, I HAD PROVIDED TO YOU THE ENTOMOLOGY REPORT OF DR. LEE GOFF. DO YOU RECALL?A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: DID YOU LOOK AT THAT REPORT?A.: YES, I DID.Q.: DID YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH IT IN PARTICULAR AREAS?A.: I AGREE WITH IT IN GENERAL.Q.: DID YOU HAVE SPECIFIC DISAGREEMENTS WITH IT IN PARTICULAR, SPECIFIC AREAS?A.: I DON’T THINK I WOULD TERM IT A SPECIFIC DISAGREEMENT.Q.: OKAY.A.: DR. HASKELL MAKES IT A TYPICAL PRACTICE TO FACTOR IN THE TEMPERATURE AT WHAT IS TERMED A MAGGOT MASS.Q.: YES.A.: AND A MAGGOT MASS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LARGE GROUP OF FLY MAGGOTS THAT BY THE WIGGLING AND RUBBING AGAINST ONE ANOTHER THE FRICTION THAT IS PRODUCED IS SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE THE GENERATION OF EXTRA TEMPERATURE JUST AS YOU MIGHT GET IF YOU RUB YOUR HANDS TOGETHER. AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPERATURES INSIDE OF A MAGGOT MASS WOULD SUGGEST THAT THESE TEMPERATURES ARE HIGHER THAN THE AMBIENT OR THE TEMPERATURES THAT MIGHT BE REFLECTED BY A THERMOMETER THAT IS CLOSEBY. HOW TO MEASURE THAT AND HOW TO FACTOR IT IN HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF LIVELY DISCUSSION IN THE FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGICAL COMMUNITY.Q.: SIR, IN PARTICULAR, THOUGH, YOU NOTED THAT DR. GOFF UTILIZED MINIMUM/MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES TO CALCULATE ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS.A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT’S AN APPROPRIATE METHOD OF CALCULATION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE?A.: NOW WE’RE TALKING ABOUT DR. GOFF’S REPORT AT THE PRESENT TIME?Q.: YES, SIR.A.: THAT IN MY OPINION IS AN INVALID TYPE OF CALCULATION.Q.: AND AS BEST YOU CAN PUT IT SO WE ALL CAN UNDERSTAND IT, WHY?A.: ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS, AND WE TOUCHED ON THIS EARLIER, ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS ARE CALCULATED BY MEASURING THE TEMPERATURE EVERY HOUR. ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS ARE CALCULATED BY MEASURING THE TEMPERATURE AND KNOWING WHAT THE DAILY MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM IS AND CALCULATING AN AVERAGE. TO TAKE THAT AVERAGE AND TO MULTIPLY IT BY TWENTY-FOUR, AS DR. GOFF DID, MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT TEMPERATURE, WHICH AS WE ALL KNOW VARIES DURING THE DAY, IT MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT VARIES ABOUT THE AVERAGE AS A PERFECT SINE CURVE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT TEMPERATURE PLOTS, YOU DISCOVER VERY QUICKLY THAT THAT’S AN INVALID ASSUMPTION.Q.: YOU JUST USED THE WORD ON A SINE CURVE.A.: A SINE CURVE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A UNIFORM CURVE THAT IF YOU HAVE AN AVERAGE, WHICH IS A FLAT LINE, AND TO GET THAT AVERAGE THE TEMPERATURE FLUCTUATES UP AND THEN FLUCTUATES DOWN, AND YOU HAVE A DAILY MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM. AND IF YOU ASSUME THAT THE TEMPERATURE RISES SMOOTHLY IN THE MORNING AND THEN FALLS SMOOTHLY IN THE AFTERNOON THROUGH THE EVENING HOURS AND RISES SMOOTHLY THE NEXT DAY, THEN THAT WOULD BE A SINE CURVE.
WE LEARN THAT IN HIGH SCHOOL TRIGONOMETRY. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT THE TEMPERATURES WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.Q.: ALL RIGHT.
SO WITH REGARD TO THE ASSUMPTION OF USING ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS, YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH DR. GOFF DID THAT, CORRECT?A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: IN ADDITION, DID YOU NOTE ANY ERRORS IN ARITHMETIC?A.: AS I WENT THROUGH THE CALCULATIONS THAT DR. GOFF HAD DONE ON THE SINGING HILLS COUNTRY CLUB WEATHER DATA, I NOTICED SOME ARITHMETIC MISTAKES.Q.: IN PARTICULAR DID YOU NOTE DAILY AVERAGES FOR 26 FEBRUARY AND 11 FEBRUARY WERE WRONG?A.: YES, I DID.Q.: DID YOU RECALCULATE THE TEMPERATURE DATA FROM SINGING HILLS?A.: YES, I DID.Q.: AND DOES YOUR CONCLUSION INCLUDE YOUR RECALCULATIONS OF THE DATA FROM SINGING HILLS?A.: YES, IT DOES.Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE MAGGOT MASS, SIR, I THINK YOU TOLD US YOU DID NOT INCLUDE ANY TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS FOR MAGGOT MASS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?A.: THAT IS CORRECT.Q.: WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE OR DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR VIEW, A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, IN TERMS OF YOUR ABILITY TO ESTIMATE THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?A.: IN THIS CASE IT DOES NOT.Q.: WHY?A.: BECAUSE THE CALCULATIONS THAT I DID REALIZING THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH RESPECT TO INCLUDING A PUTATIVE MAGGOT MASS TEMPERATURE OR NOT, I ELECTED TO MAKE MY CALCULATIONS BY NOT INCLUDING THAT. THAT IS TO PRODUCE MY ESTIMATE IN THE MOST CONSERVATIVE WAY THAT I COULD. HAD I INCLUDED AN ELEVATED TEMPERATURE FOR THE MAGGOT MASS, IT WOULD HAVE SHORTENED MY CALCULATED P.M.I.Q.: YOU JUST USED A COUPLE WORDS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. YOU SAID THAT YOU TRIED TO DO YOUR CALCULATIONS IN AS CONSERVATIVE A MANNER AS YOU COULD. COULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY AS CONSERVATIVE A MANNER AS YOU COULD?A.: RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE AND THE EVIDENCE THAT I WAS USING WITH THE TEMPERATURES THAT WERE RECORDED AT BROWN FIELD AND AT SINGING HILLS, THOSE TEMPERATURES ARE RECORDED AND AVAILABLE FOR ANALYSIS. AS I DESCRIBED EARLIER, THE EFFECT OF A MAGGOT MASS IS STILL SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL IN THAT WE KNOW THAT IT ELEVATES THE TEMPERATURES. BUT WHAT WE DON’T HAVE A GOOD EXPERIMENTAL DATA BASE FOR IS THE IMPACT THAT THAT MAGGOT MASS WOULD HAVE ON ANY INDIVIDUAL LARVA. THEREFORE, I CALCULATED BY REALIZING THAT THE MAGGOT MASS MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT I CHOSE NOT TO INCLUDE IT, KNOWING THAT THE CALCULATED INTERVAL WOULD BE SHORTER IF ONE WISHED TO INCLUDE SOME EXTRA HEAT AS A RESULT OF THE MAGGOT MASS.Q.: AND YOU SAID THAT IT MIGHT HAVE SHORTENED THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL.A.: YES.Q.: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SHORTENED?A.: THAT MEANS THAT IN MY — IN MY CALCULATION, THE CONCLUSION TO WHICH I CAME WAS THAT OVIPOSITION COULD NOT HAVE STARTED BEFORE THE 12TH OF FEBRUARY. IF I HAD INCLUDED THE EFFECT OF MAGGOT MASS, IT WOULD HAVE SHORTENED THE INTERVAL I WOULD SAY A DAY OR TWO TO THE 13TH OR 14TH.Q.: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, I’LL SAY PUSHED UP THE TIME THE RESOURCE WAS AVAILABLE FOR OVIPOSITION, IS THAT RIGHT?A.: I THINK THAT’S A FAIR TERM, YES.Q.: AND SO WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO WAS INCORPORATE ALL OF THE DATA AND GIVE THE FAIREST POSSIBLE OPINION YOU COULD AS TO WHAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THIS CASE.A.: THAT WAS MY GOAL.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT IS NOT FAIR OR AN OBJECTIVE OPINION TO USE AN ARTIFICIAL TEMPERATURE FOR MAGGOT MASS?A.: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE SENSE OF YOUR QUESTION. AN OBJECTIVE OPINION. AND NOT FAIR. WHAT I — I HOPE I CONVEYED IS THAT THE TEMPERATURE OF A MAGGOT MASS IS AT THE PRESENT TIME IS SPECULATION. THERE ARE NO MEASUREMENTS THAT WERE MADE OF ANY MAGGOT MASS.Q.: AND IF YOU ARTIFICIALLY SET A TEMPERATURE FOR THAT MAGGOT MASS, THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN YOUR FIELD, CORRECT?A.: I HAVE NEVER CALCULATED AN INTERVAL BY FACTORING IN AN ELEVATED TEMPERATURE.Q.: WHY NOT?A.: BECAUSE I DON’T HAVE ANY DATA.Q.: THERE IS NO DATA TO SUPPORT THAT AT ALL, CORRECT?A.: THE DATA THAT ARE AVAILABLE ARE MEASUREMENTS THAT WOULD CONFIRM THAT THE PRESENCE OF A MAGGOT MASS WILL INCREASE THE TEMPERATURE.Q.: THERE IS NO DATA TO INDICATE UNIFORMLY HOW MUCH THAT INFLATION IS, THOUGH, IS THERE?A.: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.Q.: AND SOMEONE EXPERIENCED IN YOUR FIELD SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT DATA, CORRECT, OR THAT LACK OF DATA?A.: AS I SAID EARLIER, THE SUBJECT OF FACTORING IN A MAGGOT MASS REMAINS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AMONG FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGISTS.Q.: SOMEONE IN YOUR FIELD WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO ACCEPTED TEMPERATURE ELEVATION FOR THAT MAGGOT MASS. CORRECT?
MR. FELDMAN: WELL, VAGUE AS TO WHICH MAGGOT MASS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU MAY ANSWER, DOCTOR.
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: THAT’S TRUE, ISN’T IT?A.: I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY FORMULA THAT WOULD ALLOW ONE TO CALCULATE THAT.Q.: DR. HASKELL USED ONE, DIDN’T HE?A.: YES, HE DID.Q.: HE SHOULDN’T HAVE, SHOULD HE, FOR A FAIR READING, CORRECT?A.: I THINK THAT’S A WEAKNESS OF THE REPORT.Q.: WHY?A.: AS I SAID EARLIER, THERE ARE NO MEASUREMENTS UPON WHICH TO RELY.Q.: AND IF YOU ARTIFICIALLY SELECT A TEMPERATURE FOR THAT MAGGOT MASS AS YOU INDICATED, THAT WOULD SHRINK THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FLIES TO LAY THEIR EGGS ON THE BODY, CORRECT?A.: IT WOULD SHORTEN THE INTERVAL OF TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR THE FLIES TO DEVELOP TO THE STAGE COLLECTED.Q.: AND IT WOULD BRING THE PERIOD OF TIME THE FLIES WERE DEPOSITING THEIR EGGS CLOSER TO THE TIME THE BODY WAS RECOVERED, CORRECT?A.: THAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT.Q.: AND IT WOULD MAKE THAT WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY SMALLER THAN IT SHOULD BE, CORRECT?A.: BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MEASUREMENTS IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT, I DON’T KNOW WHETHER IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY SHORTER THAN IT SHOULD BE, BUT THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO SHORTEN THE INTERVAL, YES.Q.: SHORTER THAN THERE’S ANY RELIABLE DATA TO CONFIRM, CORRECT?A.: AS I SAID, THERE ARE NO MEASUREMENTS.Q.: IN YOUR REPORT DID YOU INDICATE YOUR CRITICISM OF DR. HASKELL’S USE OF THAT MAGGOT MASS TEMPERATURE?A.: I DIDN’T POINT IT OUT AS A DISTINCT CRITICISM. THE WAY THAT I CALCULATED MY REPORT WAS NOT TO USE IT.Q.: YOU POINTED OUT CRITICISMS OF DR. GOFF, DIDN’T YOU, SPECIFICALLY?A.: YES, I DID.Q.: WHY DIDN’T YOU POINT OUT HASKELL’S FAILURES?A.: THE —
MR. FELDMAN: EXCUSE ME. THAT LAST QUESTION IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, FAILURES.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU MAY ANSWER, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: PERHAPS I CONSIDERED THAT I HAD POINTED IT OUT BY CALCULATING WITHOUT FACTORING IN THE MAGGOT MASS.
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: DO YOU SAY ANYTHING AT ALL IN YOUR REPORT ABOUT DR. HASKELL’S INAPPROPRIATE USE OF THAT MAGGOT MASS TEMPERATURE?A.: I DON’T MAKE A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO USE THE MAGGOT MASS TEMPERATURE.Q.: WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL US IN YOUR REPORT THAT HE SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE IT?A.: BECAUSE IT’S STILL A MATTER OF CONTROVERSY IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.Q.: YOU AND DR. HASKELL ARE GOOD BUDDIES, AREN’T YOU?A.: I’VE KNOWN DR. HASKELL A LONG TIME.Q.: YOU AND DR. HASKELL ARE GOOD BUDDIES, AREN’T YOU?A.: I WOULDN’T SAY THAT WE’RE GOOD BUDDIES.Q.: DO YOU TEACH TOGETHER?A.: I’VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A WORKSHOP WITH DR. HASKELL.Q.: HOW MANY?A.: I RECALL ONE ABOUT 1990.Q.: YOU LECTURE WITH HIM.A.: THAT WAS A LECTURE THAT I PRESENTED IN 1990.Q.: DO YOU DO OTHER TEACHING WITH HIM?A.: DR. HASKELL TEACHES AT SAINT JOSEPH’S COLLEGE. I’VE NEVER LECTURED AT SAINT JOSEPH’S COLLEGE, SO I HAVE NEVER TAUGHT WITH DR. HASKELL.Q.: THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.A.: IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN YOU SAY TEACHING, DO YOU MEAN TO PUT ON FORENSIC WORKSHOPS?Q.: YES.A.: YES. NO, I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT WITH DR. HASKELL.Q.: DO YOU WRITE ARTICLES WITH HIM?A.: WE CO-AUTHORED A NUMBER OF ARTICLES, YES.Q.: HOW MANY?A.: TWO OR THREE.Q.: DID YOU CO-AUTHOR AN ARTICLE WITH HIM IN 1993 ENTITLED “FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY, AN EMERGING FIELD IN MEDICO-CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION”?
LET’S MAKE IT EASIER. DO YOU HAVE YOUR RESUME’ THERE IN FRONT OF YOU?A.: NO, I DON’T.Q.: LET ME SHOW YOU MINE. I MARKED THE NUMBERS IN YELLOW. IF YOU COULD COUNT UP HOW MANY TIMES YOU’VE WRITTEN ARTICLES WITH NEAL HASKELL.A.: OKAY. 1993, THAT WAS AN ARTICLE ON THE VECTOR CONTROL BULLETIN.Q.: JUST COUNT THEM UP, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.A.: I SEE FOUR THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED.Q.: HOW ABOUT UNPUBLISHED?A.: THERE ARE TWO THAT ARE STILL IN PREPARATION THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MEXICAN ARTIFACTS.Q.: FOR WHAT PERIOD OF TIME HAVE YOU BEEN PUBLISHING ARTICLES WITH NEAL HASKELL?A.: WELL, THE EARLIEST ONE I HAVE REFLECTED HERE IS 1993. SO THAT WOULD BE NINE YEARS.Q.: AND YOU’RE STILL DOING IT WITH HIM, PUBLISHING ARTICLES?A.: WELL, GRANTED THAT THESE TWO ARTICLES ARE STILL IN THE PUBLICATION PROCESS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THESE PUPAL CASES, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FAIR STATEMENT, YES.Q.: SO YOU ARE CURRENTLY IN COLLABORATION WITH HIM TO PUBLISH ARTICLES IN THIS FIELD, IS THAT CORRECT?A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: YOU DID WORK WITH HIM ON THIS CASE.A.: ON THIS CASE? I DIDN’T WORK WITH HIM IN THE ANALYSIS. I WAS SENT A NUMBER OF FLY SPECIMENS TO CONFIRM IDENTITY.Q.: BY?A.: WELL, THEY WERE SENT THROUGH THE CRIMINALIST, BUT THEY WERE SENT AT THE REQUEST OF DR. HASKELL.Q.: HE SENT YOU SOME WORK IN THIS CASE?A.: THE SPECIMENS THAT WERE EXAMINED.Q.: YOU WERE WORKING IN COLLABORATION WITH HIM ON THIS CASE, THEN?
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE AND TONE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. TONE, SUSTAINED.
REPHRASE.
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: WERE YOU WORKING IN COLLABORATION WITH DR. HASKELL ON THIS CASE?A.: IN THE SENSE THAT I CONFIRMED THE IDENTITY OF THE GENUS EUCALLIPHORA, YES.Q.: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, THAT YOU CONFIRMED THE GENUS WHATEVER?A.: FUNDAMENTAL TO FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY OR ENTOMOLOGY IN GENERAL IS THE ABILITY TO TELL ONE INSECT FROM ANOTHER. AND MY SPECIALTY IS IN THE AREA OF WHAT’S CALLED OESTROID DIPTERA. AND WHAT THAT MEANS ARE IT INCLUDES THE FLIES SUCH AS THE BLOW FLIES THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY. IT INCLUDES FLIES LIKE HOUSE FLIES, STABLE FLIES, AND OTHER SORTS OF PEST FLIES. THAT’S WHAT I HAVE SPENT MY CAREER DOING. AND ONE OF MY FIELDS OF EXPERTISE IS THE TAXONOMY OF THESE OESTROID DIPTERA.Q.: I’M SORRY. DID HE SEND FLIES FOR YOU TO CONFIRM HIS IDENTIFICATION?A.: THE FLIES WERE SENT BY THE CRIMINALIST, AND I CONFIRMED THE IDENTIFICATION.Q.: THE CRIMINALIST WAS WHO?A.: I WOULD HAVE TO GET MY NOTES TO SEE WHO SENT THE FLIES.Q.: BASICALLY —A.: I CANNOT RECALL THE NAME. I’M SORRY.Q.: BASICALLY HE ASKED FOR YOUR HELP TO IDENTIFY THE FLIES.A.: HE ASKED FOR MY HELP TO CONFIRM THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE SPECIES.Q.: BECAUSE HE COULDN’T DO IT?A.: BECAUSE HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE. THAT’S A — YES. IF I CAN EXPAND ON THAT, . . .Q.: AND YOU AND HE ARE IN CONSULTATION REGARDING THAT IDENTIFICATION?A.: WHEN YOU SAY IN CONSULTATION, I CONFIRMED THE IDENTIFICATION AND SENT THE SPECIMENS BACK TO THE CRIMINALIST.Q.: DID YOU SPEAK WITH MR. HASKELL WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO DO WHAT HE ASKED YOU TO DO?A.: AFTER I DID THE IDENTIFICATION, I RECALLED THAT WE SPOKE ON THE TELEPHONE, AND I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SPECIES IN QUESTION WAS IN THE GENUS EUCALLIPHORA, YES.Q.: WHEN DID YOU DO THAT?A.: SOME TIME IN JUNE.Q.: DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM AT THAT TIME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD USE THIS ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED TEMPERATURE FOR THE MAGGOT MASS?
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: IN YOUR REPORT YOU REFERRED TO THAT MAGGOT MASS AS AN ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED TEMPERATURE, CORRECT?A.: (PAUSE.)
IT SAYS ARTIFICIALLY ELEVATED TEMPERATURE, BUT THE SENSE IS THE SAME, YES.Q.: THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT HE’S DONE THAT, IS IT, BASED UPON YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
MR. FELDMAN: VAGUE. DONE WHAT?
THE COURT: YES. BE SPECIFIC, AND I’LL ALLOW THE AREA OF INQUIRY.
BY MR. DUSEK:Q.: BASED UPON YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF DR. HASKELL AND YOUR CONTACTS WITH HIM, YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS HIS HABIT, TO USE THAT ARTIFICIALLY ELEVATED TEMPERATURE MASS FOR THE MAGGOT MASS. CORRECT?A.: I BELIEVE HE HAS DONE THAT PREVIOUSLY, YES.Q.: HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH HIM ABOUT THAT, THAT IT IS — THERE’S NO SUPPORT FOR THAT?A.: WE’VE DISCUSSED THAT IN A VARIETY OF FORMS.Q.: AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT HE CONTINUES TO DO THAT, AREN’T YOU?A.: HE DID IT IN THIS CASE.Q.: AND BY DOING THAT, HE NARROWS THE WINDOW, DOESN’T HE?A.: THAT WAS THE EFFECT IN THIS CASE.Q.: WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL US THAT IN THE REPORT?A.: AS I SAID EARLIER, I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS IMPLICIT IN THE WAY THAT I CALCULATED THE TEMPERATURES BECAUSE I DID NOT INCLUDE THE MAGGOT MASS BECAUSE I HAD NO MEASUREMENTS.Q.: WELL, YOU RECALCULATED DR. GOFF’S NUMBERS, DIDN’T YOU?A.: YES.Q.: BUT YOU STILL INCLUDED IN YOUR REPORT DIRECT CRITICISM OF HIM, CORRECT?A.: I POINTED OUT SOME ERRORS THAT HE HAD MADE.Q.: WHY DID YOU POINT OUT HIS ERRORS AND NOT HASKELL’S?A.: BECAUSE THE ERRORS THAT I FOUND THAT DR. GOFF HAD MADE WERE ERRORS OF ARITHMETIC. IF YOU WISH TO REGARD HASKELL’S PROCEDURE AS AN ERROR, THAT STILL IS IN DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.Q.: THE FIRST — WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR DATE OF 12TH THROUGH, WHAT DID YOU SAY, THE 23RD OF FEBRUARY, THAT WAS THE WINDOW OF TIME THAT YOU CAME UP WITH, —A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: AND THE 12TH, WHAT HAPPENS ON THE 12TH IN YOUR MIND TO START THE CLOCK TICKING?A.: I CAME UP WITH THE 12TH BECAUSE THE DATA THAT I ANALYZED WOULD SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF TEMPERATURE NECESSARY FOR THE BLOW FLIES IN QUESTION TO DEVELOP TO THE STAGE COLLECTED WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATED STARTING ON THE 13TH OF FEBRUARY. AND BECAUSE I ANALYZED THIS AS ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS AND NOT ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS, BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE THE HOURLY TEMPERATURES NECESSARY TO DO THAT, I HAD ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAY INFORMATION. AND IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY VARIABILITY, I INCLUDED THE DAY ON THE FRONT END. SO THAT RATHER THAN SAYING THAT MY OPINION WAS THAT THE OVIPOSITION STARTED NO EARLIER THAN THE 13TH, IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT I AM BEING AS INCLUSIVE AS POSSIBLE, I SAID I’M DEALING WITH ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS, I PUT ANOTHER DAY ON THE FRONT SIMPLY TO BE SURE. THAT’S WHY I CAME UP WITH THE 12TH.Q.: I THINK WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET AT IS WHAT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STARTS THE CLOCK TICKING?A.: THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, WOULD BE THE FEMALE FLY COMING IN AND DEPOSITING HER EGG ON THE DECEDENT.Q.: SO YOU’RE TELLING US, ASSUMING EVERYTHING YOU TELL US IS CORRECT, YOU’RE STARTING THE CLOCK WHEN THE FLY LAYS THE EGG. CORRECT?A.: THAT’S CORRECT.Q.: AND THAT GIVES YOU THE MINIMUM P.M.I.?
(JUROR NUMBER 7 RAISED HER HAND.)
THE COURT: WHOOPS. TIME FOR A BREAK. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES OR WITH OTHERS NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER UNTIL IT IS SUBMITTED TO YOU.
PLEASE BE OUTSIDE THE DOOR AT TWENTY-FIVE AFTER 10:00, PLEASE. 10:25.
(RECESS, 10:09 O’CLOCK, A.M., TO 10:25 O’CLOCK, A.M.)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
??